project_overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining discussion_mode vs discussion_access and warning that mcp_tools may differ from a cached client list. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences and reasonably compact. Each sentence adds some descriptive value, though the opening sentence is grammatically awkward and terms like 'registry' and 'indices' are left undefined. Still appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter and no parameter guidance in either schema or description, an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass. Output semantics are partially clarified, but usage context and project_id mapping are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for project_id, and the description never mentions project_id or explains how it maps to 'this connection.' The name alone is insufficient, especially since the description emphasizes 'connection' rather than project.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the registry') and indicates the tool reports Discussion permissions for the connection. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling read/list tools, and 'locate indices' is vague relative to the 'project_overview' name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_projects, read_file, or other siblings. The note about mcp_tools differing from a client's cached list is a caveat, not usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.